Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Forum at

Why should YOU join our forums?

  • Connect with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Read up on the latest product reviews
  • Make new friends to go shooting with!
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

Glock Talk is the #1 site to discuss the world’s most popular pistol, chat about firearms, accessories and more.

Harry Truman Lost Vietnam

Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by Silas.soule, Apr 30, 2013.

  1. countrygun


    Mar 9, 2012
  2. fortyofforty


    Jul 9, 2005
    Here's another happy camper escaping that Socialist utopia of East Germany.


    Pride of the German army, with years of Soviet indoctrination under his belt.

    Notice any difference in the direction of travel? Of course you don't. That's typical of Soviet education. Find a similarity and claim moral equivalence. Wall equals wall. A wall to prevent unauthorized people from entering without going through a legal process is the same as a wall designed to prevent people from leaving, built when too many people started fleeing in response to the abject failures of Socialism and the oppressiveness of the regime. Same same.

    Why would the USSR and its satellites have to construct walls to prevent people from leaving? If everyone was like you, they could have saved a lot of money. :upeyes: Why would the United States have to build a wall to keep people from sneaking in? :dunno:

    One irony is that many of the people who were denounced, arrested, tortured, and sent off to hard labor in the Gulag system were committed, diehard Communists, toadies, and lackeys. Sometimes even the guards and interrogators were, in turn, caught up in the system and found themselves tortured and starved. Karma's a *****!

  3. gwalchmai

    gwalchmai Lucky Member

    Jan 9, 2002
    Outside the perimeter
    I have no love for the Soviets, but the rape of Germany was karma. Not justice necessarily, but karma all the same.
  4. Ringo S.

    Ringo S.

    Jun 12, 2010
    I read novel lately, from which I translate passage, that may help to understand, what USSR was, and what Russia now:

    "- Now is the time when completely different people, regardless of age and place in society, are beginning to talk, to remember, or even invent, if personally didn't live through it, different and definitely positive things that existed in the USSR.

    But the stories they they came out with are too one-sided and chaotic, in these stories USSR presented to us as kingdom, with rivers of milk and honey. Free housing and education, free medical care and trips to the sea, penny prices for housing, transport and food ... and so on and so. Some go so far as to try to count all of this in today's money, and get huge numbers.

    Do all of the above is true, or is it fiction?

    It is true. Only it's not the whole truth.

    Moreover, it is all the tinsel.

    - The difference between socialism in the Soviet Union and capitalism in Russia is about the same as between a Closed stock company and a Limited liability company. If we imagine that the Company Russia has several key owners who receive dividends from the profits of the company based on the number of their shares, then the Company Soviet Union - every citizen was a shareholder with an equal stake and equal rights to dividends, which are directly dependent on the growth in value of the total Company of the USSR.

    - The basic equality of the Soviet people lay in the fact that whether you're a plant manager or a simple worker, farmer or the Secretary General, and a teacher, a geologist - all are equal in their rights to dividends, which are formed due to the work of all State.

    And it was a fundamental, inalienable right of every citizen of the Soviet Union. Right that was received at birth.

    All modern memories and experiences of good life and the social packages - this is only the sequel, and not vice versa. First you get the right by which you become a shareholder, and only then - preferences from your situation.

    - And, if similar bonuses, in our days, suddenly given for nothing, as they say "the state helping people" - it is a handout, not usage of your right. You have no rights.

    - The way in which dividends were given, was selected in form, which is now most remembered - all sorts of gratuity and benefits package. This was done indirectly, not real money to a personal account, because indirect payments stimulate reinvestment in people own country. To avoid buying up foreign real estate, to spend money in the country. If you're going to build kindergartens, then you need, first, get hold of plants, which will be produced materials, and this, in turn, will create new jobs. If investment goes in medicine and sport, it gives the output, more healthy and strong people, if you invest in science, then grow the productive forces of society, and so on. Important was basic right itself - citizens have the opportunity to get the same dividends in the form that best meets the current needs.

    The Soviet party nomenclature and late soviet elite had only one opportunity to break the shackles of democracy and the lack of social barriers.

    - The solution was found: - quickly monetize the benefits and bonuses received by them from their places in the social pyramid, and get the opportunity to transfer their belongings - power, position in society, public property, and like, as inheritance.

    The mechanism of transformation of the country was chosen as follows: - Turn the Company Soviet Union into Company Ltd. Russia. That is, deliberately deprive citizens of their most basic right to dividends from the work of all state, as a single complex. And redistribute those rights - in their favor.

    And it was brilliantly done with Company USSR in the nineties.

    - By talking about two hundred varieties of sausage, under tales of "In the West you would be paid much more for your work!", with the mindless howling and rotten slogans, that the whole world is just waiting until we free ourselves from the power of the commissars, and immediately embrace us in the dance of the fraternal peoples of the capitalism ...

    Under all this dirty veil of manipulation, illusions, and tantrums - there was radical, fundamental change. The change, which is the vast majority of people feel every day, but can not express in their own words. Namely, there was a change of ownership of Company Soviet Union. From now on, ordinary citizens have ceased to be shareholders, and now - nobody owes them enything. The elite reliably fixed its position.

    - Modern Russia - a giant Ltd., where there are several clans of shareholders, sitting on the "pipes" of all sorts, "pipes", originally belonged to all citizens, that use to subsidise the non-productional sector (schools, kindergartens, sports clubs, hospitals etc.) and invest in the complex development of their fellow citizens.

    These mega-shareholders are profiting from all, that has been built by sweat and blood of our ancestors, all, that was defended in the Great Patriotic War, and all, that was originally created precisely for the citizens of the Soviet Union Corporation. For citizens who have every right to sing: - "Broad is my dear country..." - because de jure and de facto, they were the owners, the shareholders of their Homeland.

    Since 1991 all of these shareholders sharply turned into a bunch of employees. And these workers - are interchangeable and do not represent special values. Broken, can not work as hard as two man, often sick, too old? Well then - Get out! Others will replace you. People became things, like the machines in the factory, or printers in the office ..

    - The lower the wages of the workers, for which they are willing to work, the higher the profit for the new owners. And this implies a further fundamental difference between systems:

    If local workers are not profitable - then you must import migrant workers who are here in the state of semi-slaves. And the investment, retraining or subsidizing of its own citizens can safely be spared - let them sit on the wellfare or drink vodka out of hopelessness.

    If the natives would turn up his nose at salaries at 5-7 thousand rubles (cos' heart intuitively sensing that somewhere here they are cheated), then instead of hiring them, import even more impoverished Uzbeks and Tajiks. Keenly aware, that their own citizens, when they will be hungry, they will still have no choice, but to go work for a pittance. It is called now - dumping in the area of ​​labor.

    - In contrast to today's Russia, in the former Soviet Union, every citizen was a shareholder.

    It follows a logical conclusion - for every citizen is beneficial that other residents would have worthy place in life, the best possible education, and the most appropriate place of work - simply because the connection between the concepts of "I" and "they" - iron strong. The better work the one - the bigger common corporate income for USSR, the more dividends for each.
    Value of the entire Company of the USSR grew thanks to the contribution of each citizen, and each citizen dividends have grown thanks to the efficient work of the society as a whole. So - everybody getting to be needed of each other, instead of today's confrontation: - "I" versus "they."

    - These major differences between the USSR and Russia no one has ever tried to explain, or put to public debate, but the situation was exactly that. If declare in the plain words, that in the collapse of the Soviet Union not just only elitist won(that fact is clear, and everybody have long been accustomed to it), but also explain, what exactly 99% of the population lost, it will cause extreme anger at those who started fraud and reaping its fruits since then.

    But people still do not understand exactly, what was taken away from them. Only a vague, rudimentary, fragmentary, surface nostalgic experience that once upon a time there was situation in the country, that was "just and fair"... And repeated a thousand times - cheap utilities, free housing, free healthcare, free education and everything else.

    All of these was based on legally fixed law, that the country belonged to all citizens equally.

    And the citizens - the former shareholders and former owners of the package of equal rights to profit from the activities of the mega-corporation called the Soviet Union.

    The owners - who have cheated so deftly, so skillfully, that even receiving bunch of bumps, they still thinking, that they just accidentally stumbled.

    - All of us - and those who are nostalgic for free housing, and those who curse USSR for the camps and repressions, have to understand: both of them were cheated. And the reason is not in the "goodness" or "badness" of the USSR as a state, but in fact, that they were deprived of a fundamental basic right. The right to income from work in their own country. Even if these gains were small, even the same as everyone else had, even if they not expressed in figures on a personal account, and thereby, repeated ad nauseam, free housing and the best education in the world - but all this is gone, and gone for all at once. And it does not matter - capitalism or socialism we are building. The standard of living of citizens with basic human rights - will be significantly higher, regardless of the political-economic model in the country.

    And, all declarations of any party, say: - "If we win, then tomorrow everything will have bigger wages!" - they are handouts, demagoguery and withdrawal of attention from the main point. We are all, still, remain deprived of our basic right to own a small part of the wealth of our vast country. Not any particular peace of land or specific coal mine - a small fraction of the total GDP of the country. Of gross domestic product. Without this right - we are the eternal mercenaries, trembling with fear of losing job, mortgage apartment and stay with no means of livelihood. The employee may pay a large salary, but piece of profit of private company, not for you anymore.

    - In order to get it back and fix, you will need to re-nationalization of the infamous "pipes" and the financial system.

    - And by the way, here lies the answer to such a popular post-Soviet question: - "If you're so smart, why are so poor?"

    - Because citizens lost their right to participation in the wealth of their country. If it thrives, or it is suffer - now indifferent. The maximum that you can - is amuse your self-esteem, associating yourself and Russia, during the TV news or sports competitions.

    Country-giant, possessing all kinds of resources, can not ensure the survival of its own citizens? This is - a disgrace. But shame - is not on the conscience of the inhabitants, spinning like squirrels in a wheel, but on those, who had driven them into this wheel 20 years ago ...

    A phrase, elitist of all stripes like to say, recalling President Boris Yeltsin: - "He gave us freedom," the reality is quite different: - "He gave US freedom." Not to you, not to us, but to Them ...

    I hope now you understand cynicism, and candor of this funny phrase. After all, if he gave "us" something, then from someone - he took something.

    And, in conclusion, I want to quote something on what the citizens' right to dividends were based. The Constitution of the USSR, Stalin's version of 1936.

    Teacher opened a gray thin little book:

    Article 6. The land, its minerals, waters, forests, mills, factories, mines, rail, water and air transport, banks, communications, large state-organized agricultural enterprises (state farms, machine and tractor stations, etc.), and utilities and basic housing in cities and industrial localities, are state property, possession of whole people of USSR

    Article 11. The economic life of the USSR is determined and directed by the state in the economic plan of increasing the public wealth, steadily raising the material and cultural level of the working people, to strengthen the independence of the USSR and strengthening its defense capability.

    Article 12. Work in the USSR is a duty and a matter of honor for every able-bodied citizen, according to the principle of "who does not work, shall not eat."

    - You should know this"
    Last edited: May 3, 2013
  5. 4516

    4516 On the Beach

    Jun 18, 2012
    As a young teenager I spent time with relatives in Berlin. Some lived in the Western zones, some in the East. I heard stories of how the Russians raped the women of Berlin and how they stole valuables from the men. If there was no valuables the Russians shot the men. These were civilians that told me their experiences. I went back and forth the border about a dozen times before the wall was put up and can remember how terrible the Russians were at the checkpoints and elsewhere in east Berlin.

    I witnessed the difference between the exciting Capitalist West and the bleak deary Communist East. I hate Socialism, Communism, Statist, leftist and anything that closely resembles these evil systems including those that use these systems to destroy the goodness of Man.

    I have relatives in Germany that fought in the Waffen SS, The Wehrmacht, and the German Navy. Some fought both in WWI and WWII. They lost deservedly so,as they were Socialists

    My father came to the USA as a young boy and flew for the USAAF in North Africa, and later India and Burma.

    Me, I served as a Marine during the early part of the Vietnam War.

    I have one son who saw action in Africa as an Airborne Ranger, Another son currently serving as a Naval Officer.

    As long as we allow the leftist government to run wars not to win, but as police actions (all wars since and including Korea) this Country is lost.
  6. evlbruce


    Nov 3, 2003
    [url=']"We all have it coming kid."[/url]
    Last edited: May 3, 2013
  7. Ringo S.

    Ringo S.

    Jun 12, 2010
    That fact explains a lot...

    So, let's pretend, that nazis were "socialists", and that's why they lost "deservedly". How to explain the fact, that soviet socialists won? Not "deservedly"?
    And by the way, nazis had so much more in common with english and french and the rest of west europian colonialists and american KKK, than with soviet communists, better say, they have completly different, opposite ideology with communists, so your word play with "socialists" in attempt to put nazi murderers and soviet communists on the same level is pretty much disgusting. But, as nazi use to say, Blood is most important thing. And you full of it.
    Last edited: May 5, 2013
  8. fortyofforty


    Jul 9, 2005
    When the National Socialists call themselves "Socialists" I think we can take them at their word.

    Really? what are the main differences between the National Socialist German Workers Party in Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?
  9. dukeblue91


    Sep 6, 2012
    Raleigh, NC
    Ringo S.
    This is not how I was told by my family and quite the opposite actually.
    I was born and raised in West Germany during the 60's so this was all still fresh on peoples minds and discussions came up very often although not in public much.

    Both my Grandfather and my Father albeit he was quite young where POW after WW2.
    My Grand Father was captured by the Russians and my Dad by the Americans both had stories of horrors but the ones from my Grandfather were 3 times as harsh.
    My Mother too was just a young teen when the Americans came to her town and she never had anything bad to tell me about the occupying force and the stories she told me were all good.
    My grand mother on my fathers side I never got to talk much to as she ended up on the East German side after the war and we could not go see her during this time due to political reasons so I can't draw much from her but my aunt I have met and she has nothing nice to say about russia and communists in general.

    Unfortunately all but my mother are dead now and I can't ask anything specific anymore but the stuff I do remember being told by them would have made me try to reach the American side too after we lost.
  10. Ringo S.

    Ringo S.

    Jun 12, 2010
    Yes, we really "can take nazis at their word" and truly believe them...Nazi called themselves by different names, "arain race", "supermens", "socialists"....
    Hitler start his struggle at the gutters, so, he used words most appealing to the lower classes of society. But he and his henchmen would never get the power, if true rulers of Germany, industrialists and bankers wouldn't pick them up, finance them and eventually, gave power to Hitler. Could this happen, if Hitler would be not a demagog he was, but real socialist (they already have socialist party in Germany, by the way), or, horror of horrors! a communist?
    About difference between nazis and communists, I give you one of many, but very clear:
    In communist country you can denounce your former class and be accepted as normal citizen and be successful and reach high positions. Soviet marshal Shaposhnikov, head of Red army Headquarter, wasn't just tzarist officer, but he was at one point officer in army of admiral Kolchak, one the leader of Whites, during the Civil war. And he reached one of the highest positions in Soviet society. Even several ministers of Kerensky Provisional government, that was overthrown in october of 1917 by bolsheviks, later occupied high positions in soviet economical life. And so and so, samples would be enormous and countless.
    In nazi state if you come from enemy side, you know - jews, gipsies, slavs and so, highest position you can reach is to be fertilizer in arian fields, slave or at the best "house negro" slave driver.
    Last edited: May 5, 2013
  11. clancy


    Feb 16, 2011
    What saved Shaposhnikov from Stalin's Purge was he turned against many of his fellow officers and helped have them executed or sent to the Gulag. You have a great example there, Ringo.
    Last edited: May 5, 2013
  12. Ringo S.

    Ringo S.

    Jun 12, 2010
    Yes, of course! Very easy! he was a bad guy, that's it!
    Thing is, the most of the officer corp of the tzarist Russia "turn against their fellow officers" and went to serve to Red army from the start. And many former White army officers, especially after Poland invaded Ukraine in 1920 and polish war started, join the Red army... General Slaschev, one of the best and most successful generals in Denikin and Vrangel armies, return from emigration in 1920s, and was given the position of teacher in high rank courses "Vistrel" for red commanders.
    He ended up being shot by one of the officers, who was avenging his brother, killed in Civil war. Tensions and memories of bloody civil war were still high at that time...
    Some white officers understand in the end, that fight against their own people, 90% of the population, was mistake. That's why they have courage and wisdom to take right decision.
    Even sworn enemy of bolsheviks, general Denikin said during WWII, that he would be glad and taking it as honor, if he would be accepted in Red army, fighting nazis, but he added, that this is unlikely, cos' Russia has many very talented generals and who needs old, beaten general...
    P.S. And by the way, some of the former white officers that didn't "turned against many of his fellow officers" ended up joining nazi army, such as famous White army generals Krasnov and Shkuro, and participate in war crimes against their own people. They were hanged after trial in 1947. Krasnov wrote a letter, just before an execution, in which, he bag for forgivness, he didn't beg autorities, he apologize to russian people for his mistake:
    ""Two months ago, 7 November 1946, I was taken to walk. This was in the evening. First time I saw the Moscow sky, the sky of my country, I saw the lighted streets, car spotlight, came the noise from the streets ...".

    This is my Russian people celebrate their holiday. At these times I've been through a lot, and first of all I thought of all the things that I have done against the Russian people. I understood very clearly one thing - that the Russian people, led by iron, steel will of its leader, have the achievement of which hardly anyone could dream ... It was only then I realized that there is no, and never will be place for me in this general celebration ... I was tried and convicted by Russian people. But ... I love Russia endlessly ...

    There is no coming back for me. I tried for treason in Russia, for the fact that I, along with its infinite number of enemies, did destruction to the creative work of my people ... In my case no punishment is too terrible, I deserve it ... I'm an old man, I have not long time to live, and I can well understand that I can't live among the Russian people, can not live discreetly and I have no right to live openly... I said everything I did over thirty years of struggle against the Soviets ... I invested in this fight my knowledge and my energy, all my best years, and I understand very clearly, that I have no place among the people and there is no excuse for me. "
    Last edited: May 5, 2013
  13. fortyofforty


    Jul 9, 2005
    Lenin and Stalin were gutter-fighters of the highest order. They used language that would appeal to the masses (bread and peace) until they could seize power from the democratically elected government (not the Tsar, who already had been deposed). Then the misnamed Bolsheviks eliminated, violently, all vestiges of the opposition. If you don't consider the Nazis to have been Socialists, despite the root of their very name, there is no hope to convince you with facts or logic. Your Soviet education was shallow, but you cling to it to the end.

    Nice how you use one example of a good Socialist pitbull like Shaposhnikov, who fought to destroy his colleagues in the military. That's one way to rise up. Make sure all the other officers get murdered. He's lucky he failed to join the Communist party until late, and he's lucky he died when he did. Most of his compatriots were not given that chance by Stalin.

    Your premise about the differences between Nazi Germany and Socialist Russia are patently false. People coming from the "wrong" class or wrong ethnic group in the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics were mistrusted, as were their families (leading many to have to lie about their roots). Many lost their jobs, were excluded from getting good jobs, or excluded from the best schools which led to them not being able to get the best jobs, apartments, clothing, and the other perquisites handed out by a Socialist dictatorship to keep everyone in line. This applied to many Jews, for example. Do a bit more research and you'll see the mistreatment of Jews in the Soviet Union, not to the degree of mass executions but mistreatment all the same, based on religion. Not really different. The Soviets identified people based on ethnic groups. Stalin, your beloved, even deported entire groups of certain ethnicities to the hinterlands of the USSR by force. Sounds very German, doesn't it?

    Why don't you define Socialism for us? Then we'll see if one or both countries fit into that definition. And, coincidentally, we'll see how similar the two countries were.
  14. Brucev


    Jul 19, 2009
    Re: OP. Well what could any expect. He was a shoe sales man. He was scarcely more qualified to lead anything than the squatter now currently residing in the white house.
  15. Ringo S.

    Ringo S.

    Jun 12, 2010
    Level of your ignorance on the subject equal the level of american educational system multiplied by decades of propaganda.
    You could easy find definition of socialism on internet, but I tell you the most important one - private property. Who owns it. In USSR private property ( The land, its minerals, waters, forests, mills, factories, mines, rail, water and air transport, banks, communications, large state-organized agricultural enterprises (state farms, machine and tractor stations, etc., and utilities and basic housing in cities and industrial localities) was state property, possession of whole people of USSR.
    In nazi Germany all this was in private hands. Just like in England or USA. Still, somehow fashism and nazism was created in this situation, on the base of "free market". No surprise, ideology of "higher races" and "lower races" existed before Hitler in the most democratic capitalist countries.
    Last edited: May 6, 2013
  16. fortyofforty


    Jul 9, 2005
    The governments of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union both controlled the means of production. Hitler ordered factories to produce certain items (hopefully you have heard of the Volkswagon, for example). Stalin ordered factories to produce certain items. The distinction you pretend is so clear is actually not. Factories in both countries were dictated to by the governments, not free markets, and no large industrial entity would stand up to either dictator. So, genius, the clear difference you think you see is nonexistent. Nice try, though. Get back to your propagandistic history lessons. :wavey:
  17. fortyofforty


    Jul 9, 2005
    For an example of the close cooperation between the National Socialist Party leadership and German industry, try this:

  18. ModGlock17


    Dec 18, 2010
    I would say that you are no different than Truman:

    1. He didn't know the people, had no clue.
    2. He was just trying "something" & hoped that it would work.

    It failed. The reason for failure, in hind sight, may have nothing to do with Truman or any policy. But we find it's convenient to discuss this issue now, along the genre "the chicken came home to roost".

    Is hind sight 20/20 ? Of course not. If it is, humanity would never make the same mistake.
  19. Batesmotel


    Apr 5, 2007
    Why not. We helped the French pay for it.

    What do you think Napoleon did with the money we gave him for the Louisiana Purchase? He invaded Indo-China to take the natural resources he needed to continue his fight against the British.

    Sorry if someone else pointed this out.
    Last edited: May 6, 2013